Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

Our next questioner is Mr. Mai from the New Democratic Party.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dreeshen, thank you for being here and for introducing your bill. You really fought for this measure, and we thank you. The fact that we can work together is a positive sign. As Mr. McGuinty mentioned earlier, we feel that your bill is balanced.

Furthermore, you resisted the temptation to impose a minimum sentence, an effort we don't always see from your Conservative colleagues. So we think how you handled that is very positive.

You've also left it to the judge's discretion to interpret certain definitions and to apply the bill.

But perhaps you could elaborate a bit on the interpretation aspect, particularly as regards the definitions. You've got the peace officer and the public officer. It would be a good idea to have a better grasp of what those designations cover. I looked at the excellent analysis that the Library of Parliament researchers prepared for us. It says that the lists are not exhaustive. The definitions could be broader and open to interpretation.

Could you please tell us what you would like these lists to include?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you for the question.

Again, you have to remember that I'm not a lawyer, but when I had the discussions with the drafters, we were trying to find a way to make sure that we looked at those two entities, the peace officer and the public officer, to be able to bring them together. I don't know what the different codes would be or where they would be in the Criminal Code—I have them written down somewhere but I'd have to dig for them—but they are tied into other sections in the Criminal Code. It seemed as though they were being covered under those sections. Therefore, by specifically stating the two of them—and they have some that are together—that's probably the best way of dealing with that. Again, that was the reason. That's why I didn't go any further with some of the other suggestions such as if we do that, then what about this? Here's another possibility, and so on. I guess you have to start somewhere. Since we were specifically talking about the public officer and peace officer that was part of section 130, and that's all I wanted to make a change to, it seemed most logical to stick with that.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I'd like to share my time with Mr. Giguère.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Absolutely.

Go ahead, Mr. Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

I appreciate what you're trying to do. You are basically trying to impose a stiffer penalty on those who discredit peace officers. Restoring the reputation of our public safety forces is important.

But I see a problem, even though I fear someone will point out that ignorance of the law is no excuse. When someone commits a crime, they know they are doing so, but do they know they are violating section 130 of the Criminal Code by impersonating a peace officer or an authority figure, such as a public officer?

Let's pretend someone wearing a Canadian gas company's uniform knocks on your door and says they are there to inspect a gas leak. This is an authority figure because they represent a public service. But, will the judge consider them to be a public official in a position of authority or a peace officer? Since the individual is in a position of authority, your definition could include it. Judges may have reservations about that, given that how they interpret a very broad text may lead to a stiffer penalty being imposed on someone.

With respect to section 2 of the Criminal Code, it may have been preferable to name everyone we want to protect. We would do well to make it clear that we want to prohibit people from impersonating those protected individuals, instead of having such a broad definition. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I would like you to enlighten me and explain why you opted for such a broad definition, when, in essence, you are trying to protect the public service and punish those who impersonate public officers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

One minute left.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

I understand what you're saying in this regard. Because section 130 speaks specifically of the peace officer, it is because of the fact that it is where it lists these. Therefore, all that one could do at that particular point in time was to try to make a change there. It is Bill C-55 that is seeking to define a police officer in the code in response to the Supreme Court's constitutional analysis of other professions that have certain powers that only police officers should have. There is a discussion, however, that's not in that part. I believe that is in part VI of the code, so that definition only applies there.

Again, I suppose one has to look at the knowledge base of the judges in question who are going to look at it and ask if this is similar. They can make decisions as to what might be an aggravating circumstance when they are going to make their judgments, but this is simply saying that for this case, and for these particular circumstances for these types of officers, there is no question that they must consider it the aggravating circumstance.

I hope that answers that part of the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. Thank you for those questions and those answers.

Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for being here today.

As well as Mr. Calkins, I too am retired from the RCMP. My question is more specific to the impersonation of a police officer in plain clothes. I did three years of plain clothes drug work. In some instances you don't carry any ID with you because problems might occur if someone were to find out that you were in an undercover position.

That leads to another opportunity within the bill that you brought forward. That is, a person impersonates a peace officer in a plain clothes scenario such as a person who is going to do a drug rip-off. They identify themselves as a police officer, and for whatever reason someone believes that the person is a police officer, and as a result of that a drug rip-off has occurred. Then you go to court and you have an unwilling witness from the perspective of the drug charge, but not the impersonation of a police officer. Would your bill allow the judge to move forward with an impersonation of a peace officer even though there may not be aggravating or mitigating circumstances that a witness would be willing to provide?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

That's a very interesting way to look at it. It's a different way of getting a two-for-one.

I suppose if you look at it, and it doesn't matter what the situation is, this is someone who is trying to gain advantage of someone else and they are using some form of a ruse to try to gain that advantage. Whether they are gaining advantage of a victim—and so many of us are taking a look at it and saying that we want to be able to protect victims—versus gaining advantage.... I suppose that at that moment the other drug dealer is the victim.

Maybe the courts would be in interested in having them both there to discuss what they're up to.

I can see that.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The reason I bring this forward, Mr. Dreeshen, is I think that this portion of your bill is so important to undercover operators, because they're left in the lurch in a lot of instances. It's very hard to protect them. They'll have a cover person, but other than that, they're on their own.

If someone decides that they're going to take advantage of a portion of the Criminal Code that allows a person to simply walk up in a suit, or in jeans and a T-shirt, and say "I'm a policeman", and for whatever reason the person believes the other person, it brings it into a totally different realm.

I think that's where the seriousness of this is. If you're in a uniform it's one thing, but if you're taking advantage of it through plain clothes, that's another thing altogether. I fully support your bill and I hope that the judges take a look at that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Is there anybody else?

Mr. Armstrong, do you have a question?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I have a couple of quick ones.

Mr. Dreeshen, first of all, thank you very much for bringing this bill forward.

Like you, I'm a former teacher, and I've taught several math classes. It's the best subject to teach, and I'm sure you were a tremendous mathematics teacher.

When I was working at the elementary level, one of the first things we would teach young children when they entered school was what a peace officer is, what a police officer is, and how you can trust them. They're a person in your neighbourhood who you can trust.

We have had cases in this country where people have misused that trust and taken advantage of young people. I know you're aware of those instances. That's one of the reasons I fully support your bill. I think it's going to provide added protection. It's an added vehicle for the courts to hold people to account.

Are those circumstances some of the things that would have driven you to put this bill forward?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

As I said, my intent was threefold.

Certainly, there's that innate trust we have of the police and others, the firemen, to protect us, to be there.

As we get older, we find ourselves in different situations. I've come upon accidents where I know that I've had to call the police, and they come, and you're there to help them do a job, one which not very many people really want to be part of. It's then you get to understand how serious their job is.

Then when someone takes that and turns it upside down and because of that type of activity destroys the trust that you have, I think that's important.

When I've been discussing this with different individuals, that's what they were talking about, that they work so hard to try to do their job, which is a very difficult job, and then they have this type of a ruse that's coming in and destroying that. Maybe it's not destroying it from the point of view that so many people know about it—they're only going to hear about some of the really major cases—but it's also destroying it for that individual.

That's really what we're talking about. We're talking about it here during this the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. I think this is really significant.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We're going to go now to Mr. Jacob, who has a question.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here to discuss your bill with us.

I'd like to make a comment. I want to start by saying that this bill respects the victim and judicial independence, while adequately punishing the criminal. We believe in the importance of bringing justice to victims, and we are happy to be able to work with the government on this bill. When a balanced approach is taken and a sensible solution is chosen, as in this case, we are happy to support the measure. And, no doubt, that will lead to the bill's moving through Parliament more efficiently. I like to think that the Conservative Party will revisit its stance on minimum sentences in future bills.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Dreeshen?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You're fine, okay. That's a good call.

Our final questioner is Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank the witness for being here today.

Mr. Dreeshen is a very committed member of Parliament. Certainly he's a person who clearly recognizes that his constituents have asked for this legislation. There are so many cases of this across Canada.

On that particular aspect, you did...whether you call it a formal study where data was collected or a study just to ascertain if this was a Canada-wide problem, you did say in earlier testimony that this was something that you saw from coast to coast to coast. Is that correct?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Absolutely.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I would like to be mindful that if you check the interpretation of both “peace officer” or “public officer”, because there have been considerations when people have questioned whether this should be expanded to include other professions.... Given your testimony that you wanted to focus on where the problem was, based on your experience from listening to your constituents and also from your study, that is why you are focusing particularly on personating a law enforcement officer. Is that correct?